3 ms·

How would you say democracy has been performing lately in the English speaking world? Yes, the royal family is wealthy by birth but it's a tiny fraction of nati

by dia80 5y ago

How would you say democracy has been performing lately in the English speaking world? Yes, the royal family is wealthy by birth but it's a tiny fraction of national wealth and the country gets something in return e.g. stability, some shared identity, soft power, tourism. I think British people mainly want to avoid another grubby scramble for political power by the unfit who then proceed to try and push ideology and fill their own pockets. I'll take the royals, who have been raised to have sense of duty and know they need to project the impression of service, over president Blair/Boris any day.

becquerel 5y ago
But as a fellow Brit I there's parts of this I really can't understand. How could anyone not see the royals as filling their own pockets, given their ludicrous wealth? As for the sense of duty and noblesse oblige, well, I think Prince Andrew explodes a lot of those refined notions. As far as I know, the royal family hasn't sanctioned him in any serious way.
- dia80 5y ago
  By "fill their pockets" I mean actively engage in political corruption. The royal families relatively static wealth makes little difference in the grand scheme. The £85m figure from the crown estate mentioned in this article is 0.1% of government spending. I didn't mean to suggest the royal family are unimpeachable beacons of virtue but that their primary motivations are different to politicians in a way that benefits the country.
  - crumbshot 5y ago
    > By "fill their pockets" I mean actively engage in political corruption. But they do. For example, the Queen used her power to get an exemption from transparency laws with regards to her own personal wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que..., and her son Charles did the same to ban his tenants from purchasing freeholds: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charl....
  - dia80 5y ago
    (replying to sibbling) By political corruption I mean activities that are obviously detrimental at societal level. That sucks if you are Charles's Tennant and you want to by the freehold but I'm think more of funnelling contracts to your unqualified friends like the PPE scandals. Again I'm not suggesting the royals are perfect just that the alternative is worse.
    - mcny 5y ago
      One story I remember is some corruption is okay when there is enough to go around. If I told you that the janitors responsible for changing the light bulbs didn’t wait for the lights to burn out and replaced light bulbs with a few weeks worth of life left (when replacing other light bulbs) and took them home to use them you probably wouldn’t bat an eye. It isn’t even worth spending time thinking about it in developed countries. However, imagine you are in a developing country and corruption is rampant. I think you would justifiably be less charitable toward the janitor even though you know it is the same act but the pie is smaller so every bit counts. The royals being corrupt in the UK (I hope it becomes just England and Wales within my lifetime, preferably with NI and Scotland withdrawing) is ok but the royals being corrupt in Swaziland is a big problem.

by dia80 5y ago

becquerel 5y ago

But as a fellow Brit I there's parts of this I really can't understand. How could anyone not see the royals as filling their own pockets, given their ludicrous wealth? As for the sense of duty and noblesse oblige, well, I think Prince Andrew explodes a lot of those refined notions. As far as I know, the royal family hasn't sanctioned him in any serious way.

dia80 5y ago
By "fill their pockets" I mean actively engage in political corruption. The royal families relatively static wealth makes little difference in the grand scheme. The £85m figure from the crown estate mentioned in this article is 0.1% of government spending. I didn't mean to suggest the royal family are unimpeachable beacons of virtue but that their primary motivations are different to politicians in a way that benefits the country.
- crumbshot 5y ago
  > By "fill their pockets" I mean actively engage in political corruption. But they do. For example, the Queen used her power to get an exemption from transparency laws with regards to her own personal wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que..., and her son Charles did the same to ban his tenants from purchasing freeholds: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charl....
- dia80 5y ago
  (replying to sibbling) By political corruption I mean activities that are obviously detrimental at societal level. That sucks if you are Charles's Tennant and you want to by the freehold but I'm think more of funnelling contracts to your unqualified friends like the PPE scandals. Again I'm not suggesting the royals are perfect just that the alternative is worse.
  - mcny 5y ago
    One story I remember is some corruption is okay when there is enough to go around. If I told you that the janitors responsible for changing the light bulbs didn’t wait for the lights to burn out and replaced light bulbs with a few weeks worth of life left (when replacing other light bulbs) and took them home to use them you probably wouldn’t bat an eye. It isn’t even worth spending time thinking about it in developed countries. However, imagine you are in a developing country and corruption is rampant. I think you would justifiably be less charitable toward the janitor even though you know it is the same act but the pie is smaller so every bit counts. The royals being corrupt in the UK (I hope it becomes just England and Wales within my lifetime, preferably with NI and Scotland withdrawing) is ok but the royals being corrupt in Swaziland is a big problem.